Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway - Fence The applicant wishes to add a fence in the front yard to duplicate the existing wrought iron fence on the little balcony over the door. If he cannot duplicate the circular piece, the fence design will be altered to exclude them. A gate will be added at center front. MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-129 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple - Windows Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to replace a rear concrete block wall with glass blocks and door. The project will not be visible from the street. Ms. Whitt described the project is detail, showing where the blocks and windows will be. There is a lot of shrubbery in the area. Mr. Burriss thought we reviewed this project last year and thought the current plans would be an improvement over the metal windows. MS. LUCIER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF 03-123 AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neil Hartfield, 325 East Elm Street - Renovationss Mr. Strayer said the project will include roof and window replacements, increasing pitch on front porch and installing windows that match the current windows. The applicant wants to restore some historical details which have disappeared through remodeling. Mr. Hartfield described the project in detail and GPC members asked for further clarification of some items, such as location of window on the north second floor and ventilation plans. The 6over6 double-hung windows will all match in style and size. A new dormer will be added to break up the massing and allow more light into the bedrooms. New board and batten siding will be added to the third story gable ends. The windows will be appropriately trimmed, and a retaining wall or landscaping will be added to control rainwater runoff. A brick veneer will be added below the drip board. A glass block window will be added in the east side for the bathroom. Members discussed the pitch and materials of the roof Ms. Lucier asked about the aesthetics of front façade where louvers are tacked on and thought a window would improve appearance, and Mr. Hartfield said originally there were two windows in the attic, but two windows do not look right. It will look better with board and batten siding. Mr. Burriss would like to see consistency among windows. Some are 6over6 and some are 8over 8. He asked if there could be two dormers added, but Mr. Hartfield did not think that would look as good. He thought the windows would look better lined up. He wanted to see more pitch on gable or shed roof. GPC had no problems with the porch roof. Mr. Hartfield wanted to think about 6over 6 instead of 8over 8 in the second floor and wanted to draw another sketch with more pronounced peak and smaller size dormers, board and batten on north side, trimming louvers, and a new window. He will also do a landscaping plan on the east to help control water run-off.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-125 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT DRAWINGS OF THE DORMER MODIFICATIONS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS AND THEY WILL GIVE FINAL APPROVAL. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville School, 130 N. Granger Street – Sign Mr. Strayer said the requested sign is blue and white, sand-blasted foam. The maximum size for a sign is 4 sq.ft, but this one is 12.5 sq.ft. Ms. Lucier said the sign is too big, three times what it should be and asked whether the sign is decorative or informational. Mr. Burriss said the School Board has been very generous with the Sinnett House space and wondered whether the Granville Fellowship would also be requesting a sign. Kathy Lowery, Superintendent, said they have not approached her. The sign is informational and would be adjacent to the parking lot. Rodger Kessler, Signmaker, thought if it were any smaller, people could not read it. Mr. Salvage said the building comes right up against a commercial district, and it is not in a residential area. Mr. Parris said the zoning in place was not designed for schools, and he would be sensitive to what neighbors think of the sign. Mr. Riffle thought it would be more visible as a two-sided sign. Mr. Burriss would prefer that the sign be 6” lower in the place as proposed. Mr. Parriss said we struggle with this issue constantly, and he has mixed feelings, but if you look at the appropriateness of the function and size, he would not have a problem as long as the neighbors do not object. We have done this for other institutions. Neighbor Steve Mershon believes the school needs identification on the building. The place they have chosen is fine, but he would like it a little smaller. We wanted to make the area look more residential. He thought this an appropriate size if it is to be viewed from Broadway and Granger. He would rather see it on Broadway, but they are trying to direct people into the parking lot. Mr. Salvage said the sign location will eliminate the problem of people not finding the parking lot. He thinks it should be parallel to Granger and should be lower. Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the size variance (1147.03):

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We deal; with this type of circumstance more than we would like to. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The sign is appropriate for the size of the activities in the building. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. I don’t think that granting on that basis would confer any undue privilege to the applicant that this body has not seen fit to consider in other applications. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The variance will in no manner affect health, safety, or general welfare .

FOR THESE REASONS, I PROPOSE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO 03- 127 FOR SIZE OF THE SIGN FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MS. LUCIER VOTED NO.)

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-127 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO DECREASE HEIGHT TO 1’ OFF THE GROUND INSTEAD OF 1 ½’. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

W. W. Bancroft LLC, 230 East Broadway - Fence Mr. Strayer stated that the application is coming from the screening required for the parking lot east side approved at our last meeting. The fence will be a 72” three-board style. The same fence on the north will be installed on the east side. It will not disturb the big tree on site. Brian Newkirk said they have lowered the height of the fence and it will match the other one. MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-128 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Julio Valenzuela, 410 North Granger Street - Addition Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants an addition on the rear of the second floor. The massing will be affected, but since it’s on the second floor, it won’t be very visible. The materials will match original house. Mr. Valenzuela said we are coming over the first 8’ and allowing the master suite with 8’’ overhang. Shutters will be added. The house has been added onto several times, but he will be keeping the old part and only working on the additions. Mr. Salvage asked why the window on the left side will be right up above and the applicant said it’s to bring additional lighting inside. Mr. Burris stated if he centered the window, it would look better. The inside area was discussed and it was determined that there was good cause for putting the window where it is. Ms. Lucier asked whether it is an extension of the gable, and the applicant said on the south is was too low, and we are going to match the gable. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE 03-131 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E,F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2003. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.